Limit someone to certain sites

Site scope decides where a member can work. It changes nothing about what they can do.

Under the organisation's Members. Needs organisation-admin access.

Read this before you start

Listing no sites does not mean no access. It means every site.

Scope works by naming the sites a person is limited to:

• No sites listed → unrestricted. They see everything in the organisation
• One or more listed → exactly those

So an unrestricted member is not a member who has been locked out. They are a member with the run of the place.

Steps

1. Open the organisation's Members and find the person.
2. Add the sites they should be limited to.
3. Save.

From then on they see only those sites.

Removing a restriction

Removing a site narrows them further — until you remove the last one, at which point they become unrestricted and can see everything.

This is the trap in reverse. If you are removing sites because someone should have less access, removing the final one gives them the most. To take away their access, change their role or remove them from the organisation.

Owners and admins cannot be limited

Adding scope for an owner or an admin has no effect. They see every site regardless.

If someone genuinely needs to be confined to one site, they need a role that can be confined — warehouse, member or read-only.

Checking rather than assuming

Because the unrestricted state is silent, it is worth checking scope explicitly for anyone who should be limited, rather than assuming an unconfigured member is confined.

A quick audit question: for each member who should be site-limited, does the list actually name sites? An empty list is the failure mode.

Scope and role are independent

Changing scope never changes what someone can do, and changing their role never changes where. Set both. See how access works.